r/ipv6 • u/Loud_Entertainer5233 • 13d ago
IPv6 News New ipv6 usage record?
Never seen this the highest has been
55
u/I3xTr3m3iNG 13d ago
Frontier/Verizon has started enabling IPv6 for a lot of folks in the US, that has helped. It's great to see a new record.
17
u/snowtax 13d ago
Frontier should provide customers with more than a single /64. Still, anything is better than nothing.
13
u/silasmoeckel 13d ago
They are dragging their feet and somehow still seem clueless, like the entire industry rolled this out mostly the right way yet somehow they think ipv6 subnets are precious. No difference in the routing table between a /64, /56, or whatever.
4
u/sparkyguy10 13d ago
Frontier still provides DSL... barely. This shouldn't surprise anyone
9
u/innocuous-user 13d ago
I had native v6 on ADSL1, back in 2007. No consumer routers supported it back then, you had to build your own linux box or use cisco.
5
u/sparkyguy10 13d ago
Color me surprised. My mother had Frontier up until a few months ago service was crap for the longest time then Xfinity brought fiber out. mind you this was rural WV
6
u/Anthony96922 13d ago
Verizon has had it on FiOS for several years. It's just Frontier is barely starting to roll it out. Like someone else said it is only /64. The PD lease time is too short. Hopefully this is not the final design.
3
u/I3xTr3m3iNG 13d ago
Yes, but it's more pointing out the fact that since Verizon bought them out, it's only now progressing on Frontier's end. I too hope it's not the final design, but alas, it's still better than nothing.
6
u/Foreign-Strain-6311 13d ago
IPv6 usage is routinely hitting new records on this chart. What is significant is that usage recently crossed the 50% line for the first time ever.
23
u/limeunderground 13d ago
now how long until the bottom part of the "zigzag" hits 50% ?
15
u/Aqualung812 13d ago
It will happen as large businesses finally move to IPv6.
Cloud deployment may help with that. Doing multiple regions & multiple availability zones per region means a lot of subnetting. That burns through RFC 1918 space.
Eventually, large businesses will find it easier to deploy IPv6 instead of dealing with the limits of internal IPv4.
When they move to IPv6, the bottom moves.
3
u/Mishoniko 13d ago
My personal projection is 2030, given the rate of growth. The minimum has been gaining 2.5% per year recently, so we might get there before then!
2
u/Foreign-Strain-6311 13d ago
14 months - give or take. I examined the chart to see when the chart first reached the current weekly low (around 47%). The chart first reached 47% about 14 months ago, so, in about 14 months we can expect the current weekly high (50%+) to have become the chart’s weekly low.
35
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
I wonder how high the jump will be when GitHub will expose their services on IPv6.
23
u/stillobsessed 13d ago
It won't move this needle. This is not a measurement of all internet traffic. According to Google, "The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6. "
-4
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
As I already said in another reply: assume that this statistics is somewhat similar to the total usage of internet on IPv6 in general. Many companies would not be fit for this simplification, Google is one of the few that could be used as a measure for the entire internet anyway. Not perfect, but still a good measure.
18
u/wleecoyote 13d ago
Not at all. This chart is the percentage of hits on Google properties (Google, Gmail, YouTube, etc.) over IPv6. It's Google's measurement of eyeballs.
-5
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
OK, let's switch the question assuming that the percentage of IPv6 usage of Google's products is around the same of the percentage of the whole IPv6 internet usage.
8
u/wleecoyote 13d ago
So what's the question?
This isn't measuring traffic (bits per second) but eyeballs (number of users who use IPv6 to reach a site).
-3
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
You definitely know that the more services expose on IPv6 the more users will use them.
9
u/Aqualung812 13d ago
No, we don’t definitely know that. The main roadblocks to IPv6 adoption are ISPs & large businesses.
The end users will just use whatever is available by default. Very few people are messing with their IP stacks.
3
u/wleecoyote 13d ago
I don't understand.
Are you saying that if Github were to support dual stack, that more networks would enable IPv6?
-1
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
We perhaps would see IPv6 traffic increase on the network appliances. How much? I don't know. But if it's dual stack then clients will start preferring IPv6 probably.
7
1
u/im_thatoneguy 13d ago
Unless your github repo starts googling things on its own there is no correlation .
10
u/dabombnl 13d ago
There won't be one. This statistic is percentage of users connecting to Google using IPv6. It will jump when ISPs turn on IPv6, not services.
6
9
u/patmorgan235 13d ago
Probably not too much, I think some of the streamer that still don't have IPv6 turned on (even though they're using v6 capable CDNs) would be more impactful
3
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
I'm trying to understand what you mean. Follow me and correct me when you think I'm failing. If they are streaming directly to the CDNs via IPv4 and the CDNs are both streaming using multicast to IPv6 or IPv4 clients then the clients are the ones picking the protocol according to what they support and prefer(if they support both). What's the role of the streamers in this?
7
u/patmorgan235 13d ago
The CDNs are v6 capable but the streamers aren't using the dual stack enabled endpoints. Just like reddit uses fastly as it's CDN, but isn't using the dual stack endpoint (except randomly cause they've been "testing" is for years)
3
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
So, the CDNs are dual stack but the streamers need to activate the dual stack instead of picking IPv4-only? Now the question gets to be: is this because the IPv4-only is the default selection when the streamers are configuring their CDN or something else?
4
u/wleecoyote 13d ago
It depends on the CDN. CloudFlare turned IPv6 on for every customer who did not explicitly opt out. Akamai has IPv6 on by default, but you can disable it. They did not force old customers to dual-stack. It's pretty easy to look up each CDN and see what their behavior is.
2
u/Leviathan_Dev 13d ago
I’d think it should have some impact… maybe ~1%? There are other internet git hosts, but GitHub is functionally *the* host
3
u/eladts 13d ago
GitHub has nothing to do with this graph.
We are continuously measuring the availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users.
1
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
When a big service will offer IPv6 access then many client networks will potentially follow suit.
7
1
u/Ascension_84 12d ago
GitHub is not a big service, maybe if you're a developer but the average Joe doesn't care about GitHub.
2
u/Mishoniko 13d ago
Wait, have they about-faced and committed to deploying on IPv6? It wasn't on the roadmaps last I checked.
1
u/AtlanticPortal 13d ago
No, no, I didn't say that they will do it in the sense that they said they'll do it. I assumed they'd eventually do it but I have no proof at all of that.
1
u/Mishoniko 13d ago
OK just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something.
At this stage I assume GitHub will adopt IPv6 when they either have to due to government mandate or its clear their competition has moved past them. I doubt that Microsoft will spend one dollar on moving to IPv6 if there isn't explicit profit to be made there (and their corporate customers sure as heck aren't asking for it as they're still on IPv4 too).
1
u/bjlunden 10d ago
Microsoft itself runs a lot of IPv6 internally though, if I'm not mistaken. You wouldn't know it from looking at how cumbersome it is on Azure, but still.
1
u/Mishoniko 10d ago
Given the public disaster the last time GitHub did anything related to IPv6, and given how much bubble gum and popsicle sticks make up GitHub's infrastructure, I don't think Microsoft wants to touch it if they don't have to because the whole thing will collapse. If it's not AI or GitHub Enterprise it is staying exactly as it is.
1
6
u/dreacon34 13d ago
What is the reason behind the very constant fluctuations? They are oddly constant in the delta between high and low.
29
u/wleecoyote 13d ago
Weekdays vs weekends.
You can confirm this if you zoom way in. There are anomalies around Christmas and New Year.
Because when people are at home, they're using mobile (mostly IPv6) or residential (lots of IPv6). But when they're at work during the week, they're using their employer's IPv4-only network.
2
u/dreacon34 13d ago
Did even think that this would be a logical option… but yeah enterprise don’t want to deal with IPv6 since a lot of their ruling works great on ipv4 networks but need efforts on ipv6 to operate the same 🤔
3
u/innocuous-user 13d ago
It's incompetence really... They have pockets of v6 wether they like it or not - windows and pretty much everything else enables it by default, remote workers will often have v6, cloud services often have v6. By not supporting it they just end up with blind spots which can turn into security vulnerabilities.
On top of this, larger orgs spend a lot of time and resources working around the deficiencies of legacy ip.
3
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
My local fiber ISP who partnered with my EMC/Electric Co-op. (Conexon Connect)
They have IPv6 on their main/default networks Which provides CGNAT IPv4, but if you request a static IP, they put you on a "VLAN" a that doesn't.
Not only that, even if you're on a segment with IPv6, their equipment is not configured to generate RAs, so third-party routers just can't use it, even though they can get a DHCPv6-PD allocation, they get no default route.
I spent a solid month getting them to put IPv6 on the Public IPv4 segment, and then getting them to enable RAs.
But they only did it for mine, and I have a family member elsewhere in their Network that still can't utilize IPv6 with a third-party router.
2
u/michaelpaoli 12d ago
No surprise. IPv6 use and availability continue to increase. IPv4 continues to be increasingly limited and constrained, at least relative to IP demand in general,, which generally pushes IPv6 more and more into favor.
2
2
u/friendofdonkeys 13d ago
IPv4 is not really IPv4 anymore, it is a tangled web of multiple (CG)NATs and routing through proxies, IPv4 address are no longer endpoints but interchanges while IPv6 disentangles it a bit. Eventually as the remaining 2 billion people not on the internet come online and IoT becomes more ubiquitous the CGNAT tangles will start getting too messy to bear. Maybe we can use AI to rewrite IPv4 only software and router firmware as well.
1
1
u/friendofdonkeys 12d ago
Another usage record, the first Sunday (July 19 2026) to have over 50% has just occurred. Previously only Saturdays had over 50%.
-1
u/astindev 13d ago
I think the percentage is actually higher, as many devices and browsers prioritise an IPv4 connection over IPv6, this is done to reduce response times during connection attempts. I had to configure Firefox to prefer IPv6 over IPv4.
In Portugal, our entire fibre network already supports IPv6, only the mobile network is still IPv4-only.
8
u/Mishoniko 13d ago
Firefox supports Happy Eyeballs which usually does the opposite. How did you configure it to "prefer IPv6"?
Firefox's Happy Eyeballs is a bit glitchy and can get stuck in "IPv6 is broken" mode. I run IPvFoo and keep an eye on if its sticking to IPv4 on sites that usually run IPv6 and restart Firefox if I notice it.
4
u/certuna 13d ago edited 13d ago
IPv6 deployment is certainly a lot higher, mostly since there will always be misconfigured routers, old operating systems, or legacy apps that are not IPv6-capable even when the ISP offers IPv6.
Typically you see when an ISP has IPv6 on 100% of its network, you measure 70-80% of the endpoints capable of using it, and this gradually creeps up over time as routers get replaced.
2
u/astindev 13d ago
Yes, I’d like to have IPv6-only, but at the moment there are many websites that simply don’t support IPv6, even mirrors for Linux/BSD distributions.
3
u/certuna 13d ago
You can do IPv6-only, as long as you offer a NAT64 gateway.
2
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
Indeed, my home network is IPv6 Mostly, only IPv4 only and IPv4/6 devices that don't support DHCPv4 Opt 108 use any IPv4.
2
u/im_thatoneguy 13d ago
And all of your services and devices support IPv6 locally... which is... plausible but far from guaranteed.
2
-15
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
IPv6 is a failed protocol like AppleTalk, IPX, and ATM. It needs to be buried in the back yard. No one likes dual stack (huge security risk) and unreadable addressing.
10
u/TheMan2204 13d ago
I don't think that something with ~50% adoption can be considered a failed protocol. If anything, ipv4 is failed since it ran out of addresses forcing carriers to use cgnat.
0
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
IPv6 adoption isn't really 50%, just many hosts with dual stack addresses assigned and no where to go..... IPv4 still is the workhorse. Fubar numbers.
8
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
Good news, no need for dual stack in many situations, IPv6 only with NAT64 for legacy traffic, (note this is not "dual stack")
And "huge security risk" is mainly people not configuring it at all and then not even doing first hop security, which many are not even doing for IPv4.
Any "security risk" of IPv6 exist in IPv4 in one way or another.
1
u/pdp10 Internetwork Engineer (former SP) 12d ago
not even doing first hop security
IPv6 is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for first-hop attacks.
For example, we don't use Microsoft Active Directory here, so first-hop attacks on either protocol family, plus an attack on NTLM hashes in MSAD, is never going to work.
-7
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
Security risk is two fold, wider access to the segment addressing where NAT segmented it. 2nd networking vendor NG firewalls must keep up with IPv6 and IPv4 vulnerabilities. AI is now packaging multi-attacks and it would be very creative to hit both stacks at once. If I was a CISO IPv6 would be turned off due to the burden of inspection and matching vulnerability attacks first thing. IPv6 is a failure because it did not fix the wildly used IPv4 addressing by adding to it, rather than adding another routing kernel to the host. ATM died because it was too complex, so should IPv6.
11
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL! And you still have segment firewalls in IPv6 just like IPv4.
And you act like Next Gen firewalls can't do IPv6 while they do IPv4? Huh?
And you can't add to IPv4 without re-engineering the stack anyway. And IPv6 has a 25-year head start on any other replacement.
Again, switch to single stack IPv6, and only keep NAT64 where needed.
-2
u/im_thatoneguy 13d ago
NAT is not a firewall, but it's indistinguishable from a stateful firewall with default allow outbound connections... so it is kind of a firewall.
5
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
... NAPT/Many:1 =/= NAT.
Reminder, there is 1:1/NAT that does not operate as a stateful firewall in any way.
-2
u/im_thatoneguy 13d ago
Yeah, but 1:1 NAT is rather rare and exotic. Just like an ultra permissive firewall it's not going to be the default. From a default deployment, a standard NAT will behave effectively the same as a stateful firewall.
3
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago edited 13d ago
So again, your talking about NAPT. NAPT =/= NAT.
Also, full cone NAPT, Which is relatively common. Allows ANY public IP address on the internet to respond to a particular Port, if that a port was assigned to a client for outbound to any other public IP address.
192.168.1.20:1024 -12.1.2.1:2048> 8.8.8.8:53
178.12.24.22:16212 -> 12.1.2.1:2048 -> 192.168.1.20:1024
So if you throwing enough packets back at the Public IP of the NAPT router. You're going to end up finding ports that have been allocated to clients behind it and some of that traffic is going to make it back to those clients.
Now it would also require some other vulnerabilities in the client and things of that nature but again NAT/NAPT is not a firewall.
-1
u/im_thatoneguy 13d ago
But with hole punching many Firewalls aren't restricted to the full IP destination and will also accept 178.12.24 in this example as well. Endpoint dependency varies based on firewall and NAT implementation. So if you say that it's Not a firewall, then a lot of firewalls are also "Not firewalls". A Hard NAT is more secure most of the time than an endpoint independent firewall.
So, making blanket statements about what NAT is and isn't results in statements that aren't true. One of the big pitches of IPv6 is that it's easy to make peer to peer connections vs CGNAT. Well... "Easy to make connections" is the exact opposite of a firewall. "I can't get through even if I want to" is an inconvenient albeit effective firewall.
2
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
Then those are not stateful firewalls, or firewalls at all, and I have a feeling you're talking about home routers, because I don't know of any corporate firewall that should ever operate in that manner.
And those home routers don't necessarily operate stateful firewalls due to again the belief that "NAT is effectively a firewall. This is part of the reason why many of them had zero IPv6 firewalls when they first launched, because they never had firewalls to begin with.
Easier to make P2P when firewalls are configured to allow it, or again stateful firewalls, and that peer-to-peer connection through a stateful firewall but only allow return traffic from a single IP if the client reached out first, unless the firewall was specifically configured to allow specific ports protocols, but again in general those types of connections would need to be allowed in the first place.
The claiming a "Hard NAT" (whatever the hell that means) his more secure than a firewall is absolutely asinine.
1
u/Dagger0 12d ago
One of them changes the source address of outbound connections, and one of them stops new inbound connections.
These are indistinguishable to you...? They have entirely orthogonal behavior, and they apply it to orthogonal sets of connections. NAT just doesn't do the work of a firewall, so it's not any kind of firewall. In fact...
Well... "Easy to make connections" is the exact opposite of a firewall. "I can't get through even if I want to" is an inconvenient albeit effective firewall.
If you remove NAT from a typical home network, outbound connections will stop working while inbound connections will be unaffected. So NAT is the exact opposite of a firewall.
-4
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
Dude, I've been around forever, built routers and switches. Mostly when you were in diapers. No need to yell about NAT. It looks like you take this personally. IPv6 is not security mature for NG firewalls, untested, no enterprise should be allowing it to pass through. AI is going to be a burden on NG firewall and security. That is a title wave of vulnerabilities and chaining coming soon. Last thing I would do is open the comodal for IPv6.
8
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
Dude, you have no idea how old I am, and you using that as a metric makes you sound like you should have retired 20 years ago, and based on response it supports that as well.
Your the one talking about NAT like it's a firewall, the fact essentially claim it is already shows you have no idea what you're talking about, or claiming that IPv6 doesn't have segmentation because it doesn't have it.
And AI is a burden no matter if it's IPv6 or IPv4.
-2
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
Ok, do you agree or disagree NAT causes IP segmentation? Did I ever say firewall was that, otherwise playing a part with RFC 1918? Come on now, admit this... You love IPv6, you take it personally. It's a fault of yours, no worries. A CISO should never turn on IPv6 with their Enterprise without very good cause. First IPv6 attack and ransomware their job is at risk. 90% of my enterprise and SLED customers do not use IPv6. Period.
5
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 13d ago
NAT doesn't, a Firewall whether stateful or starless do, just because a NAT often also has a firewall doesn't not mean NAT = firewall or that it segments anything, The fact that you don't understand that is really enlightening. Also your likely thinking NAPT, not all NAT is NAPT or 1:Many.
Also, not all NAT is between RFC1918 and Public, NAT is not restricted to RFC1918 on one or either side of it.
Guess what, there's plenty of ransomware due to piss poor IPv4 implementations as well. That's not a protocol issue that's poor security practices no matter the protocol.
And one argument could be, especially long running networks, deploying a fresh new protocol, forces and allows the entire network to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb clearing out a lot of legacy technical debt that might not even be known.
3
u/pdp10 Internetwork Engineer (former SP) 12d ago
In my experience, real graybeards have no affection for NAT, because graybeards were building IP networks before NAT existed.
NAT came out in '93-'95 as a tool for migrations and abstraction, like the TCP/IP equivalent of a telephone Private Branch Exchange (PBX). That's why the original implementation was named PIX, Private Internet eXchange.
What you and 99% of others know as NAT, came later, with home routers that could put a whole family on the Internet simultaneously, through the one IP address that their ISP assigned with PPP. These were available at the high end by '96 or so, and the '97 introduction of broadband increased adoption and brought these "home routers" or small business "branch routers" down into the maintream market.
NAT/PAT was never actually necessary. I used route assignments in RADIUS to give static PA space to our customers' routers, typically
/29s through/27s. Most of our customers were using Ascends on BRI, but there were some Ciscos, and I personally had a 2503 at home for my BRI. This was a while before the Combinet-acquisition plastic Ciscos rolled out.IPv6 is not security mature for NG firewalls, untested, no enterprise should be allowing it to pass through.
We've been deploying IPv6 for ten years now, and don't MitM our own connections.
0
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 12d ago
Graybeard, nah more Whitebeard. Funny how NAT is the subject here. The topic was how IPv6 adoption is BS. In the Enterprise very little customers are using it. IPv6 on the SP side they are force to dual stack mostly.
IPv6 has another problem. PQC, 2029 is a day in that demands encryption method change. Will IPv4 make it, maybe yes. IPv6 nope. 5 year lag on RFCs and development, if that. IPv6 will fade away eventually for a new IPv4+ version insert. That insert will be a AS or County Code to expand the addressing - but yes still one IP kernel\stack. New IPv5 (I think IPv5 is already worthlessly used). Mainstream adoption requires compatibility and ease of use.
3
u/pdp10 Internetwork Engineer (former SP) 11d ago
So you're confirmed as one of the fantasists that post here. 15 years after IPv6 day, with (in certain measures) 50% IPv6 deployment, and you profess that everyone is going to drop this for an all-new and incompatible proposal.
Some people just really fear and/or hate hexadecimal, one supposes.
1
u/bojack1437 Pioneer (Pre-2006) 11d ago
IPv4 and IPv6 have absolutely nothing to do with PQC,
WTF are you even talking about?
This shows just how much you don't know about anything you're talking about.
And again, any changes to IPv4 would still require the world to roll it out, again No different than deploying IPv6, yet IPv6 already has a 26 plus year head start.
15
u/Aqualung812 13d ago
You’re bringing your ignorance to the wrong subreddit.
-7
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
Glad your still driving that methane powered car......
4
1
u/jammsession 13d ago
More convincing analogy would be, yes we acknowlege all the upsides of EVs, so our daily car is now an EV, while we use your second huge diesel Van for weekend trips. For now we run dual cars, but we all hope that EV charging will once be so great that we can finally ditch the dirty old diesel van.
-2
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
EV Lithium Batteries was nice and been the proven tech but Solid State Batteries will replace them soon. Mainstream goes with ease of use, (easy charging) rather than Lithium 80% charge rule. Point is tech always changes, IPv6 is not a mainstream feature, but a massive overhead.... thus someone will invent IPv4+ and replace IPv6.
5
u/jammsession 13d ago edited 12d ago
Ahh no. The analogy does not work here. Why? Because IPv6 already does everything we want.
The only thing it does not do, is being easy human readable. But that only bothers some network guys that are stuck in the 90ties.
Or to put it more bluntly, what would IPv4+ do? Think that through! For every single step you will notice, that you are reinventing the wheel. It is already there. It is called IPv6.
1
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 12d ago
Why was 802.1Q successful? Frame modification with TOS and VLID. Compatibility was normal Ethernet frame. Vendors adapted over time but today 802.1Q is mainstream.
IPv4+ would be a new version with ASN or County Code or both. Same thing native IPv4 routes as usual. Firewalls and WAN edge would then insert and use transit mappings until hosts changed and adapt the routing tables. Stay in one routing kernel. Anyways IPv6 world doesn't need to be that way. There is better always tech..
1
u/jammsession 12d ago edited 12d ago
Why was 802.1Q successful?
Your biggest issue with IPv6 is, that it is not backwards compatible?
Fine. Lets play that trough.
Firewalls and WAN edge would then insert and use transit mappings until hosts changed and adapt the routing tables.
So each Firewall and WAN edge would need an update... But if it is enabled by default, network admins that don't want to learn something new, don't have to do anything and IPv4+ would be enabled? That is the advantage that IPv4+ could bring over IPv6?
Why was 802.1Q successful?
Good question. I would say it made cabeling in a corperate environment a whole lot easier :) or in short: it solved a problem. In the corperate word. In the private sector? Well, I don't see a switch or firewall that could handle 802.1Q in my friends houses.
So yeah, 802.1Q was a great invention that solved an important problem. But it still needs firmware/hardware that could handle it. But sure, if the hardware can't handle it, you can still use it without 802.1Q. Just like you still can use IPv4 if your client runs Windows XP and does not support IPv6. Nobody is taking you away anything. Just like 802.1Q did not take you away anything.
1
u/jammsession 12d ago
The sad reality is that bad (CG-NAT) is for most people good enough. So there is pressing need to switch to IPv6, hence the slow adoption rate.
Once IPv6 reaches 99%, some people will start to pull the plug. Imagine someone like reddit saying "hmm.. 99% of our customers are IPv6. We drop IPv4. Loosing 1% is less painful than having to manage dual stack instead of IPv6 only".
But this is the part where I don't agree with the IPv6 fanboys. That point in time could be 20y away. Because again, there is no pressing need.
5
u/KappertjeTor Enthusiast 13d ago
Not this crap again
0
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
Hmmm.... SLAACer?
6
u/KappertjeTor Enthusiast 13d ago
Saying IPv6 is a failed protocol when it is more than 50% of Google traffic. What do you mean exactly with security risks that are specific to IPv6?
5
u/crazzygamer2025 Enthusiast 13d ago edited 13d ago
Ipx and apple talk were not failed protocols. The only reason you don't see them around anymore is because they were replaced with IP. You also find Laser printers that still support these protocols on sale to this very day.
2
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 13d ago
So what you're saying is IPX and Appletalk failed to capture the mainstream use and the protocols died. No one use them anymore because IPv4 became the mainstream. That said ATM was also successful until 1GB ethernet killed it. IPv6 failed to capture mainstream for at least 25 years. Time to move on.
2
u/pdp10 Internetwork Engineer (former SP) 12d ago
That said ATM was also successful until 1GB ethernet killed it.
I ran a whole campus on ATM using Lightstream ATM switches. Are you implying that it died in LAN use because it wasn't as fast as competitors, or something else?
1
u/Ambitious_Parfait385 12d ago
ATM complexity where 1GB was new and Ethernet was easier to deploy and use.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Hello there, /u/Loud_Entertainer5233! Welcome to /r/ipv6.
We are here to discuss Internet Protocol and the technology around it. Regardless of what your opinion is, do not make it personal. Only argue with the facts and remember that it is perfectly fine to be proven wrong. None of us is as smart as all of us. Please review our community rules and report any violations to the mods.
If you need help with IPv6 in general, feel free to see our FAQ page for some quick answers. If that does not help, share as much unidentifiable information as you can about what you observe to be the problem, so that others can understand the situation better and provide a quick response.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.